the decision was made not to accept her rescission of her resignation. from legal and labor, our actions are appropriate. i will read to you the section from the agreement that we have with our contract with ue, which is pretty short. >> before you start that, can you tell me, is the 20th, i'm sorry, the 20th is when that was communicated to the subject miss olsen, is that correct? >> the first day that she asked to rescind was the 14th and asked how it would be done, to her principal, not to human resources, but to her principal. >> correct.

i have the notes from the 16th and the 20th you said? >> at some point in here she was told -- i don't know the specific date that she was told, that the rescission would not be accepted, but the bottom line is that we considered accepting is it, but didn't. she had -- i will read to you a final -- if i read what the agreement says, i am not sure i can. anyway. it's under "resignation." a teacher's written offer the resignation shall be deemed accepted when filed with the board, superintendent or human resources department, except that if the teacher files a written revocation of his or her offer of resignation within three district working days, after its filing, shall be deemed -- it shall be deemed

revoked. the board of education shall fix the effective date of the resignation no later than june 30th of the school year in which the residence nation was offered. district shall make good-faith effort to notify the uniton within 24 hours of the teacher's written offer of resignation, unless the teacher affirmatively requests confidentiality. and mr. kelly is correct that we did not appropriately notice the union. we have as a matter of practice, we have a lot of resignations throughout the year, and have not historically noticed the union. i did not know there was a requirement. my bad that we noticed the union, but certainly our attorney's opinion is that doesn't affect the fact that an adult teacher made an adult

decision to resign. and there was no indication that -- and a -- in good faith based on the resignation, we hired another teacher and placed that teacher in that position the first of the month. i don't think she is in it yet, but has been fired to go into that job and has a contract to fill that position and that was done in good faith. i added a block that specifically states, do you want us to contact the union, yes or no? and then the last thing that i will submit to you is an email written by the teacher in support of the fact that it wasn't one day.

written by the teacher to my staff and to a representative of the union, when says, "i would like to rescind my resignation, the date of this is the 30th of november and she said i would like to rescind my resignation. today is my last day with sfusd and i wanted to rescind about two weeks ago, which would have been the 14th, if she, in fact, did. we have no evidence that she submited it then, but it would have been too late. principal in question does not choose to -- no. 1 we have replaced her. no. 2 the principal does not choose to rescind it, nor do we.

>> is seems that the first notification was november 7th, is that correct? >> she submitted on the 5th of november. >> 5th of november. the first resignation was november 5th? >> yes. >> and we're not hearing about revoking the resignation until late in november, is that correct? >> the 30th of november. >> the resignee sent out an email stating to staff that she resigned, is that correct? >> yes, she did. >> so when she put into motion wanting to revoke her resignation, she was actually

past the timeframe of the parameters of when she could revoke? >> yes, she was. >> commissioner mendoza? >> i was wondering why we moved it from the 17th to the 30th? >> she submitted that and it was con [srao-epbts/] for us as well. con convenient for us as well and it's my understanding that the new teacher who was hired would not be available until the 1st of the month and asked her if she would stay until the end of the month and she submitted an extension of her time until the 30th of november.

>> commissioner maufas? >> i guess you are not comfortable with this, but you have mentioned it and i will mention it as well. the discussion between the principal and miss olsen saying somebody is going to start on the 30th and she submitted a second resignation letter changing the date to the 30th. sounds like that is the reason. i am not going to project, but just guess on my own. and then on the 14th, miss olsen said you have an email asking the principal is it possible to be reinstated. is that correct? she submitted a second resignation letter to hr, changing the date to the 30th and that might have been after the cation conversation that you just mentioned and she asked the principal is it

possible to be reinstated? >> she submitted the second resignation form on the 13th, requesting an effective date of 11/30, on the 13th. the day after that, the 14th, she remailed the principal and asked if it was possible to be reinstated. >> then on the 16th, she emailed the principal that she did not get a response? >> that she was talking to the union. >> is that when the principal says it would be better to talk to the union? >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner murase? >> i have a question. does this resignation in any way impact our ability to reapply for another position within the district? >> it does not.

>> any other comments? mr. kelly, you have crept up closer and closer so say something. >> i think we have initial confusion. if you look at the footnote on the letter, you will see that the initial resignation was submitted november 7th. which proposed the 16th, but the principal received her resignation and then the rescission for that. so the timeline that mr. bushman gave you would apply if that were the only thing, but she then submitted a rescission for that that doesn't show up in his timeline. then again when she was frustrated with the job again

submitted a resignation, which she then again rescinded. so she has gone through this cycle twice. and what mr. bushman is giving you is action based on the first time that she did it and what we're following up is action based on the second. we thought the first one was already rescinded and that is why we didn't pursue that. >> so for clarification, mr. bushman, so there was no rescission -- she didn't rescind her initial november 7th resignation? >> she did not and, in fact her actions were that of someone who was planning to leave, told the school through written email, which i have, that she was going to leave. and she indicated at that point it would be the 30th, but there

was no action taken either written or otherwise, that we can determine. but the bottom line is the requirement is within three working days that it be submitted in writing. >> so basically what happened is she put in a resignation on november 7th. she put in another resignation november 14th, but did not rescind the original one on november 7th, is that correct? >> she submitted a second resignation requesting to change the date. >> okay. thank you. >> from the 17th to the 30th. whether you can do that or can't do that, i will have to ask my lawyer, but the bottom line we were acting on a resignation and we acted to post and hire her replacement

as we needed to do in order to cover that classroom in good faith well before she even talked about coming back. >> okay, let's see, no other questions. so why don't we have roll call -- to accept the recommendation yes. >> miss ly? >> yes. >> miss fewer. yes. >> miss maufas? >> no. >> miss mendoza? >> yes. >> dr. murase? >> aye. >> miss norton? >> yes. >> miss wynns? >> yes. >> president yee? >> aye. >> the next item is k5 and

commissioner wynns. >> i want to have it explained more, the private product that we were licensing, using through a license, was bought by a county office of education? >> originally they started out as the county office product, san joaquin county invented it and sold it to this company that could not handle the demands across the state and so they gave back to san joaquin county because it was not cost-effective. >> so when we started to license it, it was under the san joaquin license? >> i would have to go back and check the records. they put in for a three-year contract and it came back from contracts saying that we don't

have three-year contracts with vendors in our districts. at that time consultants were attached to it, because we were training our teachers and staffs with consultants. this year when they put it through, they didn't realize it needed a k reso and it was the transition, because it's just software this year. we have a new budget person and also a new program administrator. so they were learning the processes, but it's been a continual product that we have been using as well. >> okay. >> i am interested in the county office dynamics and i am okay with this, but i would like to find out more about it. i have other sources to find out more about it and maybe i will do a little investigation and discuss it with staff if that would be okay? >> okay. >> thank you roll call please. >> thank you, miss ly? >> yes. >> miss fewer? >> yes. >> miss maufas?

>> yes. >> miss mendoza? >> yes. >> dr. murase? >> aye. >> miss norton? >> yes. >> miss wynns? >> aye. >> president yee? >> aye. >> seven ayes. >> the next item. >> mr. davis, did you have a statement? was there something else we were supposed to do or just vote on it? >> there is not an additional statement other than the one i have sent out to the board members on two occasions just explaining that commissioner maufas' request based upon her employment with a non-profit organization is a remote activity, which is approvable and in compliance with the california government code provisions our policy is more stringent and that and it would take a waiver of our board policy for her to be totally on this position. that is what this is for.

>> so is the recommendation to do a waiver then? >> yes. the recommendation is a waiver. >> the waiver is actually imbedded in this. >> okay good. thank you. any other commissioner comments? >> yes, i have a question for our attorney. i see that this is for the oaks children center and that is the place of employment of commissioner maufas, is that correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> so that would seem that commissioner maufas would be not able to vote on any thing pertaining to the oaks children center. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> does that extend to not be able to vote -- since oak's children center is a non-public school placement, would that mean she would not be able to vote on any non-public school placement resolutions or any contracts? >> my advice to commissioner maufas is that she not vote on

any non-public school matter. >> so then commissioner maufas would then excuse herself from any of those votes? >> excuse herself from any discussion, with any board members either in a meeting or not in a meeting and abstain from voting on all of those items, yes, ma'am. >> so are those topics to be discussed for example at a committee meeting, a committee of the whole or a curriculum committee meeting, would she then there be exempt from participating in those discussions? >> she would. >> would she be exempt from participating in any discussion around special education and contracts? >> i don't think so. the way the government code is written, is that basically, if there is some financial gain nexus between what is being discussed and the fact that she employed by a non-public school

or a situation where an appearance, if a contract was not awarded to one non-public school, that was maybe a competitor of oaks. she would not involve herself in anything there there would be the appearance of personal gain because that could provide funds to oaks that could be her salary. if it's just a special education question in general that is unrelated to non-public schools, i of course will look at each of those individually, but i think she is able to discuss and vote on these matters. >> so this would not exempt commissioner maufas to vote on our budget? >> it would not, but my advice to her when she votes on the budget, whatever line item of the budget accounts for that particular funding line, that she would identify that and abstain from voting on that piece. >> okay. and so just for procedures and

roberts -- for our parliamentarian, how many votes would it take to make a majority vote? >> a majority of the board is four. >> okay. thank you very much. commissioner wynns? >> i want to ask a follow-up on that. one of the issues that occurs -- there are a couple of things, first thing as a matter of procedure and appreciate that commissioner maufas correctly is, i think, identified that she was going to abstain and leave the room in this case before we voted on the other item. because even though we know, we have to officially -- she has to identify it before the discuss or the vote takes place. but one of the things that concerns me is that the way we work with non-public schools, and i presume that is one reason why you are advising her

to not vote on anything related to non-public school placements is that we just have contracts with them and we could assign people. we could take a child from one non-public school and move them to oaks or take them from oaks and move them somewhere else and that would be problematic, and would like to acknowledge that.in the case of the non-public schools we just say these are the non-public schools that we're going to contract with and it's placement, et cetera. so we don't actually vote on the amount of money we're giving to each non-public school that. is what makes this a little different. >> exactly right, commissioner wynns, which is why this particular reso

$13 million the entire non-public school budget and to give her the advice to declare and abstain from this kind of discussion for the very reason you very articulately said. >> the question arises just like i think when commissioner fewer was you been talking about. we talk about what strategies we have to spend less money on non-public schools. that is one of our budget strategies related to the budget in general. so somebody along the line has to think about that and tell us how that might -- i mean we're not doing that until june. so i don't know-- although, we might at some point. all the budget hearings and budget committee meetings we often talk about that as something that we need to look at. what are we doing about that? i don't know -- i really don't know.

i want somebody else like you to think about and maybe do some research on that. >> i absolutely will. i will -- not that i don't anyway, but i will peruse the contract even more carefully, so i could pick up anywhere there might be and have that discussion with commissioner maufas and, if necessary, with the president of the board before anything, if it's something that would need to be brought to the attention of the entire board other than a declaration or abtension. >> the last thing it's about the declaration that she has to make whatever we have something like that on there. i haven't heard her use the words that it's not required at least advisable, "it's because of a potential conflict of interest," and that it

represents a potential conflict of interest? >> i think i have to take a little issue -- government code 1090 is an automatic conflict of interest. automatic conflict of interest. >> the words "conflict of interest," have not been used except in yours >> if you are more comfortable with that. >> you could give me a different opinion, but in the past, counsels for the school board have informed me that you have to actually state the conflict. >> that makes the record clearer, i agree and we'll do that. >> that is the purpose of the abstention. >> thank you. president yee, i want to say that i don't have a problem with this at all. i congratulation the oaks children center for employing commissioner maufas and i think she will be a great asset to them and i wish her much luck in her appointment there. i think this is something that we with work out as a board and i would like for her to be able to participate. the reason i asked about our budget, i would like for her to

be able to participate in our budget vote as it is what we do as a board, you know? thank you. >> roll call, please. >> thank you. miss pl y? >> yes. >> miss fewer? >> yes. >> miss mendoza? >> yes. >> dr. murase? >> aye. >> miss norton? >> yes. >> miss wynns? >> aye. >> mr. yee? >> aye. >> six ayes. >> thank you. moving on to item q, i believe. superintendent's proposal, first reading. this is for 1212-11sp1 adoption of the board policy bp6020, parental involvement to conform with the current law and the findings of an april, 2012 federal program monitoring audit.

is there a motion and second? >> so moved. >> second. >> this has already gone through committee. it is held over for the action in january of 2013. january, 2013 meeting. item r, board members' proposal, firs reading. this is for creating an equitable pathway to community contracting and hiring. co-authored by myself and commissioner fewer. is there a motion and second? >> moved. >> second. >> and it will be referred to buildings, grounds, services committee. >> to personnel?

should it go to the budget committee? >> my recommendation as commissioners have read the proposal, that it talks about -- i think buildings and grounds definitely, but it also talks about creating an internship program and a robust internship program. i don't know if it should go off to curriculum because it's under the purview of that portion of the resolution. >> i would think it would not go to curriculum until the plan itself is created. >> sure. >> deputy superintendent ly, does this have any fiscal impact in terms of the plan? >> commissioners i think it could be interpreted one of two ways. one is based on the narrower

view that passing this resolution calls for the creation of a plan. the contents of which would be put in place and perhaps subject to a subsequent board action. i'm not sure what the authors contemplate, but the creation of the plan, obviously is a smaller fiscal impact than potentially implementing the plan, which would certainly have fiscal impacts, i believe. >> let's get to the narrower version and work on the plan for the board to consider next year. so we'll just keep it at the buildings and grounds committee, okay? next item s, board members' reports for standing committees. are there any standing committees reports? oh, yes, there are. report of augmented buildings, grounds and services committee,

november 19th. >> you want to start with rules? >> you are right, but let me start with that since i read it. commissioner murase. >> i'm sorry, >> go ahead. >> we met on november 19th. we had the action item discussion and committee recommendations on plans and next steps regarding the 1950 mission site and related properties. the action by general consensus was to allow for six months to do negotiations with the city and county of san francisco at the end of which we will decide whether or not to go with the city recommendation. so a six -month period where we'll be in conversation with the city and county. there are two informational items, process and timelines

for the proposition 39 charter school placements and presentational update on the facilitates use database. our next meeting will be monday, december 17th at 6:00 p.m.and we'll be continuing the discussion about the local hire resolution. >> thank you commissioner murase. the next one is report from the augmented rules policy and legislative committee of november 14th, reporting commissioner wynns. >> thank you. so the first action item was the consideration and action of district positions on selected legislative proposals, which we actually didn't do any of, because they were n all in existence already. it was more that that was related to the uprr date on the legislative